In one of the most prominent legal challenges to government intelligence gathering since the Edward Snowden disclosures, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit against four top Obama Administration officials. The case, known as ACLU v. Clapper, asks a federal judge to declare the entire metadata sharing program unlawful, halt it, and purge all related records.

On Thursday, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), with representation from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), filed an amicus brief with the court. He noted that the vast data handover is not at all what Congress intended to happen. And Sensenbrenner should know, too, because he authored the Patriot Act in October 2001 and supported its subsequent reauthorizations. In particular, Section 215 of that law, which expanded government surveillance power of business records, is what the government argues gives it the authority to collect metadata in bulk.

Sensenbrenner writes:

The vast majority of the records collected will have no relation to the investigation of terrorism at all. This collection of millions of unrelated records is built-in to the mass call collection program. Defendants’ theory of “relevance” is simply beyond any reasonable understanding of the word. And it certainly is not what amicus intended the word to mean.

…

Defendants do not explain why Congress would have enacted such meaningless provisions. The bulk data collection program is unbounded in its scope. The NSA is gathering on a daily basis the details of every call that every American makes, as well as every call made by foreigners to or from the United States. How can every call that every American makes or receives be relevant to a specific investigation?

In previous court filings, the government has relied on a well-established (but increasingly challenged) part of American case-law known as the “third-party doctrine.” This notion says that when a person has voluntarily disclosed information to a third party—in this case, the telco—the customer no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy over numbers dialed or call duration. Therefore, this doctrine argues, such metadata can be accessed by law enforcement with essentially no problem.

Also on Thursday other amici joined the ACLU v. Clapper case, including Michael Lynch, a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA even argued that the creation of a vast phone records database constituted a de facto gun owners’ list.

"Under the government’s reading of Section 215, the government could simply demand the periodic submission of all firearms dealers’ transaction records, then centralize them in a database indexed by the buyers’ names for later searching," the NRA writes in its filing.

I find it striking that the NSA appears to be beyond the power of congress. Or at least to the point that a Congressman is relying on an ACLU lawsuit to hopefully impose restraints on the NSA. One would think that as a senior Congressman, he could just get on the phone and say wtf.

Welcome to Imperial America, where Congress is just political theater to make the plebs think they actually have a stake in what is going on. Example: a majority of the US does not want yet another war. Obama doesn't give a shit and fully intends to get into another one with Syria. Because war.

Everyone didn't know this back in 2001? What did people think was going to happen?

That Democrats would never again get two-terms.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Republican outrage is more because there's a Democrat in the White House, rather than real umbrage about the NSA snooping. If it was a Republican in office, it'd be perfectly acceptable in the name of homeland safety.

I find it striking that the NSA appears to be beyond the power of congress. Or at least to the point that a Congressman is relying on an ACLU lawsuit to hopefully impose restraints on the NSA. One would think that as a senior Congressman, he could just get on the phone and say wtf.

Welcome to Imperial America, where Congress is just political theater to make the plebs think they actually have a stake in what is going on. Example: a majority of the US does not want yet another war. Obama doesn't give a shit and fully intends to get into another one with Syria. Because war.

Likewise, it's perfectly fine to go in for non-existant Weapons of Mass Destruction. But it's not OK to go in for the actual usage of such against noncombatants.

It's too bad that there's no way to consign this guy to an eternity in "We told you so, FFS." hell without also leaving the rest of us there.

When he was busy authoring the Patriot Act, he probably wouldn't have spit on the ACLU if they were on fire, much less listened to them when they said that it was a terrible plan. But now, of course, he is Shocked, Shocked, that abuses are occurring.

Pragmatically, I accept that he is more useful repentant than stubborn; but 'sin in haste, repent at leisure.' is simply not good enough for congresscritters, and he deserves no praise for his incompetently late realization.

I find it striking that the NSA appears to be beyond the power of congress. Or at least to the point that a Congressman is relying on an ACLU lawsuit to hopefully impose restraints on the NSA. One would think that as a senior Congressman, he could just get on the phone and say wtf.

Welcome to Imperial America, where Congress is just political theater to make the plebs think they actually have a stake in what is going on. Example: a majority of the US does not want yet another war. Obama doesn't give a shit and fully intends to get into another one with Syria. Because war.

It is well withing Congress's ability to control the NSA. First they hold the purse strings, all they have to do is defund the NSA or even just this part of it.Second, they can change the law at anytime. Congresscritter Mr. Indignant that a Democrat would use a power he only intended a real American republican president to use (R-WI), can introduce a bill today to change this. But, he won't because it lets him get more political points bitching about the Kenyan Muslim Atheist not a real American currently in office abusing the law.

I find it striking that the NSA appears to be beyond the power of congress. Or at least to the point that a Congressman is relying on an ACLU lawsuit to hopefully impose restraints on the NSA. One would think that as a senior Congressman, he could just get on the phone and say wtf.

Welcome to Imperial America, where Congress is just political theater to make the plebs think they actually have a stake in what is going on. Example: a majority of the US does not want yet another war. Obama doesn't give a shit and fully intends to get into another one with Syria. Because war.

It is well withing Congress's ability to control the NSA. First they hold the purse strings, all they have to do is defund the NSA or even just this part of it.Second, they can change the law at anytime. Congresscritter Mr. Indignant that a Democrat would use a power he only intended a real American republican president to use (R-WI), can introduce a bill today to change this. But, he won't because it lets him get more political points bitching about the Kenyan Muslim Atheist not a real American currently in office abusing the law.

Yes, I realize all of those things. But the reality is this: no laws get passed in this Congress. The amount of legislation that actually gets through is laughably puny compared to, um, every other non-Obama Congress in the history of the US. As for NSA funding? lol, get real. You would be labeled anti-American, guilty of treason, traitorous, terrorist lover, and killer of unborn American babies before the ink was dry. Pretty much like Snowden was within days.

So yes, while technically Congress still holds complete power over the NSA, in actual practice it holds none. Especially not with people like Feinstein shrilly advocating for NSA power because terror not to mention the pablum coming out of Obama on the matter.

Congress is of course not of one mind, some might say it is mindless. It is of course a set in the play that is "Democracy Theatre". The irony is that many in Congress are unaware that they are actors in the play.

I find it striking that the NSA appears to be beyond the power of congress. Or at least to the point that a Congressman is relying on an ACLU lawsuit to hopefully impose restraints on the NSA. One would think that as a senior Congressman, he could just get on the phone and say wtf.

Welcome to Imperial America, where Congress is just political theater to make the plebs think they actually have a stake in what is going on. Example: a majority of the US does not want yet another war. Obama doesn't give a shit and fully intends to get into another one with Syria. Because war.

It is well withing Congress's ability to control the NSA. First they hold the purse strings, all they have to do is defund the NSA or even just this part of it.Second, they can change the law at anytime. Congresscritter Mr. Indignant that a Democrat would use a power he only intended a real American republican president to use (R-WI), can introduce a bill today to change this. But, he won't because it lets him get more political points bitching about the Kenyan Muslim Atheist not a real American currently in office abusing the law.

Yes, I realize all of those things. But the reality is this: no laws get passed in this Congress. The amount of legislation that actually gets through is laughably puny compared to, um, every other non-Obama Congress in the history of the US. As for NSA funding? lol, get real. You would be labeled anti-American, guilty of treason, traitorous, terrorist lover, and killer of unborn American babies before the ink was dry. Pretty much like Snowden was within days.

So yes, while technically Congress still holds complete power over the NSA, in actual practice it holds none. Especially not with people like Feinstein shrilly advocating for NSA power because terror not to mention the pablum coming out of Obama on the matter.

I take it you forgot about the time congress noticed that the sequester would effect there ability to fly home and passed a hand written bill changing just the sections that would make it easier for them to fly. If it turned out the NSA were snooping into congresspeople's data there would immediately be changed, and probably only to the benefit of those in congress.

The ACLU, the GOP writer of the Patriot Act and the NRA agree on (fill in the blank). Wait. There is nothing you can put in that blank. Nothing until the obscene flagrant violation of the 4th Amendment which did the impossible. Unifies groups from all aspects of the political spectrum. That is how bad the bad behavior of the NSA is. Bad enough to do the impossible.

As far as the ACLU goes, this makes perfect sense. I fail to see what my phone records have to do with terrorism.

The NRA said that these data sweeps include all gun sale receipts. Index the receipts and you have confiscation list to handout to any local, state or government agency ordered to enforce a gun ban.

In other words registering all sales with NSA is de facto registration of firearms and anything else covered by mandatory reporting. I should say that they have a registry of legally owned firearms. For obvious reason most criminals are exempt from this registration program...

1) compile a list of phone numbers of gun/ammo dealers2) cross-ref numbers which called or were called by numbers in #13) behold - a list of gun owners and potential owners (customers price shopping and/or checking availability).

they probably also keep track of IPs that visit the ammo sales and index sites like gunbot, ammoseek, cabelas, cheaper than dirt (which used to be cheap but isn't anymore), etc.

the problem us gun owners have with this universal registration thing is that it's been proven multiple times over that it doesn't do anything when it comes to reducing crime. it's simple logic: if a criminal knows there are no guns allowed in the place he/she intends to commit a crime, he has nothing to worry about. but if he knows there's a good chance someone will have a gun then he'll probably choose another location to rob.

it works both ways, too. if you're unarmed or not a black belt, you don't go into a rough neighborhood because you know the odds are good that something bad will happen to you. if you're armed or trained, you probably still avoid rough neighborhoods since they may not know you're armed, or may rob you anyway.

"An armed society is a polite society." doesn't mean we all run around like hollywood's depictions of the wild west, having shootouts every day, much as the lamestream media would have you believe... it just means that 'common courtesy' is more common. don't be a criminal because your intended victim might just be armed. FYI - armed doesn't necessarily mean guns. knives, bats, golf clubs, or even rocks can be lethal weapons.

Congress suddenly worried THEIR call records will show up interesting patterns....

With this you are actually touching the point that worries me most about the vast NSA data collection. This collection also happens to contain everything about politicians, journalists and just about every public opinion maker there is. Is it really unimaginable that this data collection is going to be used for political gain? A little pressure here, a bit of leaked information there, some dirt on person x and some rumors about person y. And then look how the public opinions turns into a desirable direction ... or even how a presidential elections turns out.

I did read a lot about privacy in general, some about state sponsored industrial espionage in recent days, but no one seems to ask what else could be done with a database that pretty much contains all communication that is shared via phone or the internet. How much power would the Congress be able to keep over the NSA, given the latter has the potential to dig up any amount of dirt they like on any member of the Congress? Thoughts like these actually give me goosebumps ..

E: As far as we know now the NSA is collecting meta data mostly, but there are sufficient examples on how much information can be extracted from "just" metadata. And if an interesting pattern shows up, it should be easy to dig deeper.

It's too bad that there's no way to consign this guy to an eternity in "We told you so, FFS." hell without also leaving the rest of us there.

When he was busy authoring the Patriot Act, he probably wouldn't have spit on the ACLU if they were on fire, much less listened to them when they said that it was a terrible plan. But now, of course, he is Shocked, Shocked, that abuses are occurring.

Pragmatically, I accept that he is more useful repentant than stubborn; but 'sin in haste, repent at leisure.' is simply not good enough for congresscritters, and he deserves no praise for his incompetently late realization.

I seriously don't understand why the public keeps letting their congressmen et al get away with these ridiculous claims of "who could have known these totally obvious side effects could happen!?!"

You see it all over the place. Here, obviously. Another one of current relevance is how the crackdown on prescription painkillers, besides fucking over legitimate pain patients, is leading to heroin becoming a lot more popular again, even in places it didn't used to be popular--"what do you mean, addicts won't just give up when you take away their current drug of choice!?!"

As far as the ACLU goes, this makes perfect sense. I fail to see what my phone records have to do with terrorism.

Funny thing, that. While I detest the NRA (don't care if you down vote me), the fact they're involved actually gives me real hope for change in regards the NSA. We've seen that Congress listens intently to what the NRA wants while the ACLU gets lip service. While I appreciate the ACLU's efforts, I don't see them as effective. The NRA, though? They can drive real change (much to my chagrin).

As far as the ACLU goes, this makes perfect sense. I fail to see what my phone records have to do with terrorism.

Funny thing, that. While I detest the NRA (don't care if you down vote me), the fact they're involved actually gives me real hope for change in regards the NSA. We've seen that Congress listens intently to what the NRA wants while the ACLU gets lip service. While I appreciate the ACLU's efforts, I don't see them as effective. The NRA, though? They can drive real change (much to my chagrin).

I agree, I don't necessarily agree with there reasoning for supporting a change in the law, frankly, it probably has more to do with a D being president, but President Obama is legitimately wrong on the issue of individual privacy, and I don't care why they want to do what I feel is the right thing.

I find it striking that the NSA appears to be beyond the power of congress. Or at least to the point that a Congressman is relying on an ACLU lawsuit to hopefully impose restraints on the NSA. One would think that as a senior Congressman, he could just get on the phone and say wtf.

Welcome to Imperial America, where Congress is just political theater to make the plebs think they actually have a stake in what is going on. Example: a majority of the US does not want yet another war. Obama doesn't give a shit and fully intends to get into another one with Syria. Because war.

1) compile a list of phone numbers of gun/ammo dealers2) cross-ref numbers which called or were called by numbers in #13) behold - a list of gun owners and potential owners (customers price shopping and/or checking availability).

they probably also keep track of IPs that visit the ammo sales and index sites like gunbot, ammoseek, cabelas, cheaper than dirt (which used to be cheap but isn't anymore), etc.

the problem us gun owners have with this universal registration thing is that it's been proven multiple times over that it doesn't do anything when it comes to reducing crime. it's simple logic: if a criminal knows there are no guns allowed in the place he/she intends to commit a crime, he has nothing to worry about. but if he knows there's a good chance someone will have a gun then he'll probably choose another location to rob.

it works both ways, too. if you're unarmed or not a black belt, you don't go into a rough neighborhood because you know the odds are good that something bad will happen to you. if you're armed or trained, you probably still avoid rough neighborhoods since they may not know you're armed, or may rob you anyway.

"An armed society is a polite society." doesn't mean we all run around like hollywood's depictions of the wild west, having shootouts every day, much as the lamestream media would have you believe... it just means that 'common courtesy' is more common. don't be a criminal because your intended victim might just be armed. FYI - armed doesn't necessarily mean guns. knives, bats, golf clubs, or even rocks can be lethal weapons.

/soapbox

Used to be involved with a bank in not the best neighborhood of town. We made sure we always had a armed security guard there. Many of the other banks nearby didn't. Which ones you think got held up all the time? Not us! Just the cost of doing business!

1) compile a list of phone numbers of gun/ammo dealers2) cross-ref numbers which called or were called by numbers in #13) behold - a list of gun owners and potential owners (customers price shopping and/or checking availability).

they probably also keep track of IPs that visit the ammo sales and index sites like gunbot, ammoseek, cabelas, cheaper than dirt (which used to be cheap but isn't anymore), etc.

the problem us gun owners have with this universal registration thing is that it's been proven multiple times over that it doesn't do anything when it comes to reducing crime. it's simple logic: if a criminal knows there are no guns allowed in the place he/she intends to commit a crime, he has nothing to worry about. but if he knows there's a good chance someone will have a gun then he'll probably choose another location to rob.

it works both ways, too. if you're unarmed or not a black belt, you don't go into a rough neighborhood because you know the odds are good that something bad will happen to you. if you're armed or trained, you probably still avoid rough neighborhoods since they may not know you're armed, or may rob you anyway.

"An armed society is a polite society." doesn't mean we all run around like hollywood's depictions of the wild west, having shootouts every day, much as the lamestream media would have you believe... it just means that 'common courtesy' is more common. don't be a criminal because your intended victim might just be armed. FYI - armed doesn't necessarily mean guns. knives, bats, golf clubs, or even rocks can be lethal weapons.

/soapbox

Counterpoint: easy access to guns gives cowards with more ego than brains the ability to take life easily in response to perceived insults.

1) compile a list of phone numbers of gun/ammo dealers2) cross-ref numbers which called or were called by numbers in #13) behold - a list of gun owners and potential owners (customers price shopping and/or checking availability).

they probably also keep track of IPs that visit the ammo sales and index sites like gunbot, ammoseek, cabelas, cheaper than dirt (which used to be cheap but isn't anymore), etc.

the problem us gun owners have with this universal registration thing is that it's been proven multiple times over that it doesn't do anything when it comes to reducing crime. it's simple logic: if a criminal knows there are no guns allowed in the place he/she intends to commit a crime, he has nothing to worry about. but if he knows there's a good chance someone will have a gun then he'll probably choose another location to rob.

it works both ways, too. if you're unarmed or not a black belt, you don't go into a rough neighborhood because you know the odds are good that something bad will happen to you. if you're armed or trained, you probably still avoid rough neighborhoods since they may not know you're armed, or may rob you anyway.

"An armed society is a polite society." doesn't mean we all run around like hollywood's depictions of the wild west, having shootouts every day, much as the lamestream media would have you believe... it just means that 'common courtesy' is more common. don't be a criminal because your intended victim might just be armed. FYI - armed doesn't necessarily mean guns. knives, bats, golf clubs, or even rocks can be lethal weapons.

/soapbox

Used to be involved with a bank in not the best neighborhood of town. We made sure we always had a armed security guard there. Many of the other banks nearby didn't. Which ones you think got held up all the time? Not us! Just the cost of doing business!

Yes, A Trained Armed Guard, not a citizen, was the firearm holder....that' how it should workl.

1) compile a list of phone numbers of gun/ammo dealers2) cross-ref numbers which called or were called by numbers in #13) behold - a list of gun owners and potential owners (customers price shopping and/or checking availability).

they probably also keep track of IPs that visit the ammo sales and index sites like gunbot, ammoseek, cabelas, cheaper than dirt (which used to be cheap but isn't anymore), etc.

the problem us gun owners have with this universal registration thing is that it's been proven multiple times over that it doesn't do anything when it comes to reducing crime. it's simple logic: if a criminal knows there are no guns allowed in the place he/she intends to commit a crime, he has nothing to worry about. but if he knows there's a good chance someone will have a gun then he'll probably choose another location to rob.

it works both ways, too. if you're unarmed or not a black belt, you don't go into a rough neighborhood because you know the odds are good that something bad will happen to you. if you're armed or trained, you probably still avoid rough neighborhoods since they may not know you're armed, or may rob you anyway.

"An armed society is a polite society." doesn't mean we all run around like hollywood's depictions of the wild west, having shootouts every day, much as the lamestream media would have you believe... it just means that 'common courtesy' is more common. don't be a criminal because your intended victim might just be armed. FYI - armed doesn't necessarily mean guns. knives, bats, golf clubs, or even rocks can be lethal weapons.

/soapbox

Counterpoint: easy access to guns gives cowards with more ego than brains the ability to take life easily in response to perceived insults.